In the tank with man powered loading the crew never can be fully separated from the rounds. Anyway one must open it for inserting the round to the gun. If the blow occures at that time, no ammo bustle would help.
who can kill a modern Main Battle Tank (MBT)?
- Thread starter giangnguyen
- Start date
- Status
Which is still better than that what happens when the ammo in the carussel of a T series tank gets a hit... 
I like the approach of the Leclerc when it comes to autoloading and the one of the Merkava for manual loading (Besides the small ready ammo rack of just 10 rounds in the Merkava IV).
There the connection between crew compartment and ammo compartment is minimized.
I like the approach of the Leclerc when it comes to autoloading and the one of the Merkava for manual loading (Besides the small ready ammo rack of just 10 rounds in the Merkava IV).
There the connection between crew compartment and ammo compartment is minimized.
@mic of orion
I have to agree Waylander, Still would like you though to answer three questions for me, (your spin on it)
1.What did they do to fix the unstable issue using L55 on Challie 2.
2. interested in knowing how the court case is going in regards to the Challie incident.
3. Would still like your personal take on shaped charge warheads performance on impact.
I have to agree Waylander, Still would like you though to answer three questions for me, (your spin on it)
1.What did they do to fix the unstable issue using L55 on Challie 2.
2. interested in knowing how the court case is going in regards to the Challie incident.
3. Would still like your personal take on shaped charge warheads performance on impact.
1. I have to say that I do wonder about the statement that the Brits had to fix anything. The rest of the L/55 users (We, the Netherlands, Greece and Spain) reported no stability problems during field duty.
maybe it was a Challi specific problem? :unknown
A much bigger problem is going to be the onepiece ammo.
2. The last thing I read was that they were not sure if the RPG just rendered the ERA ineffective, ERA just didn't ignited or the RPG hit a weak point between two ERA parcells.
3. I think that if one wants to protect against modern shaped charges one has to use good old passive armor because there is always the possibility that your ERA is just ineffective against a modern tandem-warhead.
And even a normal shaped charge is defenitely not going to care for any stuff carried in the bustle rack.
maybe it was a Challi specific problem? :unknown
A much bigger problem is going to be the onepiece ammo.
2. The last thing I read was that they were not sure if the RPG just rendered the ERA ineffective, ERA just didn't ignited or the RPG hit a weak point between two ERA parcells.
3. I think that if one wants to protect against modern shaped charges one has to use good old passive armor because there is always the possibility that your ERA is just ineffective against a modern tandem-warhead.
And even a normal shaped charge is defenitely not going to care for any stuff carried in the bustle rack.
It's perfectly true in the low intensity war scenario when the medical care and the evacuation of crew from the suffered tank is timely enough. In a big tank to tank engagement of rather equal forces the evacuation and medical care is never can be sufficient. the shoked and injured tankmen who still leave the compartement will faced the machinguns of T-72's/Al-Khalids ets ( and believe me it's f@king good machine!) instead of mecifull medical crew. In conclusion: they all die. The only difference, the T-series tank crew doesnt suffer... So in such tactical scenario it's better put the ammo in the most defended part of the tank, ie at the center of compartement.Which is still better than that what happens when the ammo in the carussel of a T series tank gets a hit...
The passive armor is probability working too. Any AP munition has tables of effectiveness with the probablity of penetration on the different range. Anyway you will not refuse the anti-RPG grids only because it works in 50-60% of cases, will you.
But even with cages we are talking about the mentioned 50% probality to help against shaped charges.
And we are talking for example about a Rucksack hanging next to your main armor...
It just doesn't help.
And sorry but this here is just plain wrong.
As if every crew with a disabled tank gets machinegunned nearly instantly.
Just some facts to think about. Your side is on the offensive.
- Your tank gets disabled and you have some wounded personal. The offensive goes on and friendly follow on forces take care of you. Who is going to machinegun you then?
- The confusion allows you to leave your tank and evade. During a full scale tank battle it is not that unusual that the gunners of both sides have better things to do than waste time on some dismounted crewmembers.
- You are in a defensive position. Your side wins. Your tank gets disabled during the fight. You get out and take cover. If needed medics are coming for you.
- You loose your fight and have some seriously injured personal. You give up and become POW. Or does people with T-series tanks automatically machinegun everybody...?
-...
BTW, armored medical support is implemented on company level...
And we are talking for example about a Rucksack hanging next to your main armor...
It just doesn't help.
And sorry but this here is just plain wrong.
Maybe you should just think about it again...
As if every crew with a disabled tank gets machinegunned nearly instantly.
Just some facts to think about. Your side is on the offensive.
- Your tank gets disabled and you have some wounded personal. The offensive goes on and friendly follow on forces take care of you. Who is going to machinegun you then?
- The confusion allows you to leave your tank and evade. During a full scale tank battle it is not that unusual that the gunners of both sides have better things to do than waste time on some dismounted crewmembers.
- You are in a defensive position. Your side wins. Your tank gets disabled during the fight. You get out and take cover. If needed medics are coming for you.
- You loose your fight and have some seriously injured personal. You give up and become POW. Or does people with T-series tanks automatically machinegun everybody...?
-...
BTW, armored medical support is implemented on company level...
The medical support in any big war is unsufficient per definition. Also they are under the hostile fire too. The blow-up panel explosion means tank mobility or functionality kill, injured crew. The big number of screaming men on the battlefield only averts the attention of a commander from the goal of the battle. You need at least two male nurses to help and evacuate one crewman. Can you understand Waylander that it's impossible to avoid the loss of the medical crews too. They cannot be covered against PKT/KPVT/KORD fire if they really gonna make their job seriousely. Do you really think about significant captivities percent in eventual groung conflict between India and Pakistan aor between Iran and US?
Hey Extern its been awhile.
Have you seen alot of combat Extern, do you know what type of training U.S soldiers recieve for this issue, do you have a full understanding of our logistical set up for armored units. Also to clear this up for me, is Russian tankers trained to kill wounded or shell shocked enemy soldiers on the battlefield.
I dont understand what are you trying to tell. Tank without blow-up panels are also not 100% guarantied death for crew inside - so there will be just as much injured crew. In that sense blow-up panel is certainly an advantage.
There is another problem with some blow-up panels realisation - in some cases they moved ammo from high-protected hull & turret to somewhat less protected blow-up storage, thus making ammo more vulnerable. In that case we should evaluate if such trade-off is justyfied.
Unfortunately I have no seen Chechen Wars. Then I lived in Israel before coming back. I can give you an example from my Middle East expirience however. It was at autumn 2000, just after Second intifada started. The FATH or Tanzim fighters attacked our outpost at the road Jerusalem-Gush-Etzion and cut-off the traffic between the capital and the Jewish settlements southern of it. That time I was mobilized in 'miluim' (the Israeli reservist sevice) as a "medical officer" or military doctor if you want and my little unit provided med. help for events at this road and Bethlehem checkpoint simultaneousely. I had the paramedic (woman), 7 or 8 nurse (only two between them were men) and two transports. So, with these forces I had to garantee medical help for the wounded Israeli soldiers and if need for captured and civiliance too, but OK listen further... We received the call with information about two wounded, but our group waited 2 hours till the sniper duel at the point was over. During this time one of the wounded died from the bleeding. I still speak about super 'lucky' situation, good roads, short distances, mobilized infrastructure.
Other part of my annually service in reserve were exersises with the medical company of an Israeli tank division. Yes, we had the higly trained evacuation teams with the vehicles, though the evacuation from the battlefield remain the crucial point in all this calculation. However the first 'gold hour ' is a decisive time for the seriousely (but not lethal) wounded, and it can be problematic. I understand that it's may be very important psychologically to be sure for the soldiers the medical help is ensured, but if realistically thinking the effectiveness of all these measures in a big war is diminished. If the evacuation cannot enter battlefield during 2-3 hours (what I expect in the worse scenario), the medical help has only limited point.
Coming back to our topic: the blow-up panels reduce the number of killed but can rise the number of wounded and shoked (due to superficial placement of the rounds and their bigger vulnerability). Thus their effectivenes as a 'life saver' is depended of the medical help quality and early evacuation. And I can find you number of tactical scenarios where the life expectance of the survived ammo blow-up tankmen is short.
Yes, they effectivenes is certainly depended of situation. F.e. if tank is surrounded by hostiles and crew cant leave it at all - they effectivity is 0. But in other cases they will still reduce casualities. Even if some of crew will die later, some will surivive. Plus by all accounts.
It is unfortunate that you did not serve or see the Chechen wars, personally I think you are fortunate not being involved in that conflict because of the destruction and loss of life on both sides. Is it possible Extern that a lucky hit could occur with the ammunition door open, yes it could happen but that would be a small percentage, of course you will have a attrition rate of the amount of wounded that you could lose, but with proper training and the protection offered by the blow out panels this will offer you a lower attrition rate. I know of many circumstances where the blow out panels have contributed to saving a tank crews life, and you know that the biggest fear that a tank crewman has and the percentage of tank crew deaths is contributed to fire, you being a combat medic in a armor unit should know this.
Extern - I have always enjoyed and learned from your posts and I will state that I had alot of respect for you, learning what I just did from the above post from you, I will state that I have even more respect. I think that both of us can agree that combat is ugly and very unpredictable and if we have to send men and women into combat that we should strive to give them the best protection possible, with the blow out panels that are currently fielded on the M1 series even though not perfect, they are alot better than what is currently in use by the majority of tanks that are out there.
Last edited:
That will be interesting for British tankers going with a one piece tank round, they haven`t had that experience since operating Centurions. This has to litterly tear their guts out going to Germany for a gun and bullets for it due to pride.
Could it be that where the RPG round impacted that this was indeed a weak spot due to possible damage to that certain section, you and I know that the front hull can take a beating if you have a careless driver, also the Brits have always been quite concerned about the protection level in this area, they even had this type of armor package positioned on the Challie 1.
I really doubt that the British would hunker in place a different gun that they will most certainly have to make some major turret modifications to without conducting a extensive test on that gun.
@Eckherl
One problem for the brits is also that their ammunition supplier closed it's doors.
It will defenitely be interesting to see their loading times. They constantly claimed that they are not slower with their two piece rounds than other crews with one piece rounds.
So now they should be able to load a DM63 every 2 seconds.
I always wondered about the vulnerability of the ERA at that lower hull position.
One often enough rams this part into the earth.
Maybe ERA placed there suffers from malfunctions due to the rough treatment.
One problem for the brits is also that their ammunition supplier closed it's doors.
It will defenitely be interesting to see their loading times. They constantly claimed that they are not slower with their two piece rounds than other crews with one piece rounds.
So now they should be able to load a DM63 every 2 seconds.
I always wondered about the vulnerability of the ERA at that lower hull position.
One often enough rams this part into the earth.
Maybe ERA placed there suffers from malfunctions due to the rough treatment.
@Extern
I highly honor that you did your duty.
But as somebody familiar with armored warfare and the medical support armored units get you should know that there are several possible situations where a crew, which survived an ammo explosion because of blowout panels, may get away.
Let's just take one of the examples I gave to you.
One company attacks enemy positions and is able to thrwo the enemy back to the next position. During this attack one tank gets a hit into the ammo storage.
Without blowout panels the crew is dead no matter what.
With blowout panels the crew is wounded or maybe not even that. Due to the fact that the battle moved on this crew can no disembark and wait for follow on forces or for medical support.
For sure there is also the possibility that one is defending a position and gets shot into the ammo storage. If your comrades are not able to hold the position you get killed or end up as a POW.
And I can assure to you that, during an intense tank battle, no TC is going to care for a dismounted crew as long as they don't act openly hostile.
For example in a Leopard II one can leave the tank through the emergency exit at the botton within cover of the tracks and maybe one manages to evade into a nearby wood.
In the end I think nobody stated that blowout panels are going to be a 100% life safer but they are enhancing your chances of getting away and that's what counts.
I highly honor that you did your duty.
But as somebody familiar with armored warfare and the medical support armored units get you should know that there are several possible situations where a crew, which survived an ammo explosion because of blowout panels, may get away.
Let's just take one of the examples I gave to you.
One company attacks enemy positions and is able to thrwo the enemy back to the next position. During this attack one tank gets a hit into the ammo storage.
Without blowout panels the crew is dead no matter what.
With blowout panels the crew is wounded or maybe not even that. Due to the fact that the battle moved on this crew can no disembark and wait for follow on forces or for medical support.
For sure there is also the possibility that one is defending a position and gets shot into the ammo storage. If your comrades are not able to hold the position you get killed or end up as a POW.
And I can assure to you that, during an intense tank battle, no TC is going to care for a dismounted crew as long as they don't act openly hostile.
For example in a Leopard II one can leave the tank through the emergency exit at the botton within cover of the tracks and maybe one manages to evade into a nearby wood.
In the end I think nobody stated that blowout panels are going to be a 100% life safer but they are enhancing your chances of getting away and that's what counts.
BTW, take a look at http://www.niistali.ru/pr_secure/br_dz_light.htm
scroll down
They also state what new BMP-3 with new ERA retains amphibious ability.
scroll down
They also state what new BMP-3 with new ERA retains amphibious ability.
Thanks eckherl. Thanks Waylander!
I hope nobody here thinks I totally reject overall blow-up panels effectiveness. I dont it from the start of this discussion. However this device as any other has to have its limitations, and I only try to understand what is them. I'm sure we can be in consensus that one wounded always better that one dead, cannot we. But if the ratio is 2 to 1 , our conclusion might be different due to abovementioned limitation of the medical aid. My specific question is: what situation on the battlefield may become the blow-up panels isolated storage extremally vulnerable? I recognise follow threats:
1) Saturation of the battlefield with auto-cannon fire, become the standard equipment of the most light armored vehicles and helos (the UCAVs are on the doorstep). The tank's turret storage and the lateral blow-up panels are highly vulnerable in the face of the auto-cannon 23 - 45 mm shells from the incoming traverse angles 35 grad and more. I'm not sure about KPVT 14.5 mm machinegun AP munition that according to the official information take on 20 mm armor steel on 20 grad angle.
2) High density of enemy (or even fraternal) arti fire. Casset element and big splitters normaly arent able to penetrate the compartment armor, still are to do it with less defended tank storage.
All these treats are something that you cannot prevent with known active protection measures. The additional passive defence for the tank storage is also limited due to structural limitations, something that is true at least for the current tank models with such panels (Abrams, Merk-IV). So in parallel with its benefits we obviousely have an additional point of vulnerability for those models.
Of course in the worse situation the thought about the wounded friends waiting for help can push a tank batalion to fight fiercer for ending the enemy sooner. But not allways it depends only of them... IMO in such circumstances it may be better have one tank lost with its crew dead instead of two wounded crews with two disabled tanks.
I hope nobody here thinks I totally reject overall blow-up panels effectiveness. I dont it from the start of this discussion. However this device as any other has to have its limitations, and I only try to understand what is them. I'm sure we can be in consensus that one wounded always better that one dead, cannot we. But if the ratio is 2 to 1 , our conclusion might be different due to abovementioned limitation of the medical aid. My specific question is: what situation on the battlefield may become the blow-up panels isolated storage extremally vulnerable? I recognise follow threats:
1) Saturation of the battlefield with auto-cannon fire, become the standard equipment of the most light armored vehicles and helos (the UCAVs are on the doorstep). The tank's turret storage and the lateral blow-up panels are highly vulnerable in the face of the auto-cannon 23 - 45 mm shells from the incoming traverse angles 35 grad and more. I'm not sure about KPVT 14.5 mm machinegun AP munition that according to the official information take on 20 mm armor steel on 20 grad angle.
2) High density of enemy (or even fraternal) arti fire. Casset element and big splitters normaly arent able to penetrate the compartment armor, still are to do it with less defended tank storage.
All these treats are something that you cannot prevent with known active protection measures. The additional passive defence for the tank storage is also limited due to structural limitations, something that is true at least for the current tank models with such panels (Abrams, Merk-IV). So in parallel with its benefits we obviousely have an additional point of vulnerability for those models.
- It's just what hapen in reality. I donno you saw it or not: the Hizballa video about clash with Israeli tanks at South Lebanon valley during Leb-II war. There we can see one Israeli tank hit with (probably) Cornet and starting smoking. The other one is coming and puting the smoke screen. We dont see what exactly happen there, but can guess the remained in life crewmen of the hit tank - those who still could move - went to the second Merkava's back hatch and were evacuated. Here the crucial points of their survival were 1) the existance of rear hatch (BTW only Merkava has it) and 2) the ability of other tanks to stop their job and help to the wounded. No evacuation team could do it in those circumstances. I can only wounder what could be if other tanks were occupied with the battlefield.
Of course in the worse situation the thought about the wounded friends waiting for help can push a tank batalion to fight fiercer for ending the enemy sooner. But not allways it depends only of them... IMO in such circumstances it may be better have one tank lost with its crew dead instead of two wounded crews with two disabled tanks.
Hi Chrom!BTW, take a look at http://www.niistali.ru/pr_secure/br_dz_light.htm
scroll down
They also state what new BMP-3 with new ERA retains amphibious ability.
This page exists in English too
http://www.niistali.ru/pr_secure/bmp_en.htmTHey used styrofoam sa a filler for making its upgrade floatable.
More interesting they offer an ERA kit for Abrams
http://www.niistali.ru/pr_secure/br_dz_light.htm#4BTW, the Russian page about Relict ERA is completely new though has no English analog: http://www.niistali.ru/pr_secure/br_dz_relikt.htm
Last edited:
Extern, you state again a very special possibility. The deep raids of the Merks in Lebanon have been something very special and as I stated there is a whole bag full of other possibilities where the wounded crew might be in a better situation.
That the Merk has the backdoor is nice but in other armies these tanks would have been accompanied by IFVs which are also able to evacuate wounded crews.
I seriously doubt that artillery shells are able to penetrate the turret top and there are even uparmoured versions of some tanks available which increase the protection even against bomblets.
That modern autocannons can be a problem if they can get into your rear is normal and nothing special.
And I just don't see why the turret sides of a tank with blow out panels should be more vulnerable than that of a tank without them?
Another point is that even if the crew is dead there is a high possibility that one can get the tank back into service after some repairs.
A tank which suffered from a catastrophic ammo explosion is gone and is not going to be seen back in active service.
That the Merk has the backdoor is nice but in other armies these tanks would have been accompanied by IFVs which are also able to evacuate wounded crews.
I seriously doubt that artillery shells are able to penetrate the turret top and there are even uparmoured versions of some tanks available which increase the protection even against bomblets.
That modern autocannons can be a problem if they can get into your rear is normal and nothing special.
And I just don't see why the turret sides of a tank with blow out panels should be more vulnerable than that of a tank without them?
Another point is that even if the crew is dead there is a high possibility that one can get the tank back into service after some repairs.
A tank which suffered from a catastrophic ammo explosion is gone and is not going to be seen back in active service.
Ya, thats why i linked russian version. English one is incomplete.Hi Chrom!
This page exists in English too
THey used styrofoam sa a filler for making its upgrade floatable.
More interesting they offer an ERA kit for Abrams
BTW, the Russian page about Relict ERA is completely new though has no English analog: http://www.niistali.ru/pr_secure/br_dz_relikt.htm
- Status